Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco UCS Director vs CloudM Manage comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco UCS Director
Ranking in Cloud Management
21st
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
CloudM Manage
Ranking in Cloud Management
72nd
Average Rating
3.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Cloud Management category, the mindshare of Cisco UCS Director is 1.3%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CloudM Manage is 0.1%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Cisco UCS Director1.3%
CloudM Manage0.1%
Other98.6%
Cloud Management
 

Featured Reviews

Sunny Nair - PeerSpot reviewer
Good multi-cloud management capability, but third-party and legacy integration needs improvement
Normally, UCS Director is used primarily for orchestration, but when we look at a non-Cisco data infrastructure components, the UCS Director needs a bit more improvement in terms of integration with third-party systems and with existing older systems. I feel that more development or a more integrated road map should be set up so that it becomes a common platform for any infrastructure. In the next release of this solution, I would like to see changes in the navigation controls of UCS Director. That would be helpful. Modifying the icons that are available for use, as well as virtualization aspects.
Kumaravadivel Palani - PeerSpot reviewer
Performance is relatively poor and speed needs improvement
We use CloudM to store our employees' details We use it for backup storage only. In the future, my company may go for the testing on Cloud because it has a large infrastructure. The feature I like most is its stability. In terms of improvement, the performance of the solution should be made…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"A product that really aids in systems management without complexity."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the fabric sharing."
"This is a user-friendly solution that is very good and easy to use."
"The solution is helpful for centralized management."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The reason we went with Cisco is that it comes at a very negligible cost as part of the BOQ. Compared to the competition's products, which are incredibly expensive, UCS Director is low-cost."
"Cisco UCS Director is straightforward to use, which we greatly appreciate."
"The product is flexible and compact. It has a lot of features."
"CloudM has good stability and scalability."
 

Cons

"The product's pricing needs to improve."
"There could be an improvement with the integration with the newest solutions from other vendors' technologies."
"We cannot depend on this solution to manage all of the data center's infrastructure."
"Currently, Cisco UCS Director is unable to integrate with another product or with a server from another brand."
"The product could allow more programmatic opportunities through better development of the API."
"Normally, UCS Director is used primarily for orchestration, but when we look at a non-Cisco data infrastructure components, the UCS Director needs a bit more improvement in terms of integration with third-party systems and with existing older systems."
"There are a lot of bugs in the solution. This is an area in the solution that can be improved."
"It is not easy to add or expand the product."
"CloudM is slow compared to other solutions."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate Cisco UCS Director's price a three out of ten. Cisco UCS Director is not an affordable product. With Cisco UCS Director, there is a need to pay an overall price, which consists of the product, software, and support."
"The budget doesn’t work for the state and local governments."
"Cisco UCS Director is expensive...I rate the solution's pricing a three out of ten."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is a low price and ten is a high price, I rate the pricing around five to six out of ten."
"I would rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten."
"The cost of this solution is significant."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Management solutions are best for your needs.
867,445 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Government
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise11
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco UCS Director?
Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco UCS Director?
While the pricing might be seen as expensive, it provides value for money due to reliable service and excellent technical support.
What needs improvement with Cisco UCS Director?
It should be more of a cloud-based architecture for Cisco UCS Director, and it should be affordable to small customers as well because the pricing is a major challenge when we talk about Cisco UCS ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
CloudM CloudManager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Entel, Data#3, Cegal, NESIC, LightEdge
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Nutanix, VMware, IBM and others in Cloud Management. Updated: August 2025.
867,445 professionals have used our research since 2012.